Your New WHS Index

I know of an individual that has seen differentials of 3, 6, 7 replaced by 19, 22, 24.

that patience is out there

if he’s gaming the system then he’s still only just completed the first lap out of 14.

And if he’s gaming the system he should know that keeping some of his game sharp enough to score in the mid teens will deliver the same outcome.

——

I’d differentials of 11.1 and 36.9, just 5 days apart, last month.

I lost interest after 10 holes of that second round, after washing 4 balls in 3 holes.

——

I don’t know the person in question. But I don’t think he’s gaming the system. My guess is that he’s a touch erratic, and loses some interest after a poor start or a poor middle. Like me.

Once upon a time that was just 0.1 back. Which in some ways was fairer. But if it happens 5-6 times out of 10, to be honest, this handicap is too low, regardless of their potential.

54 shots is pretty much a limitless handicap. I haven't heard of anyone get the max handicap.

And if everything worked as it should I'd love to see everyone given the choice of tees to play from and have everyone play in comps together. But in reality, people would find that they shot better from particular tees and that might dictate what tees they play from. So you might end up with a single digit guy playing from the front tees and a higher handicap playing from the back because that's where they think they'll get the best score.

Well in the same way that you move forward until you hit a certain standard, you would move back as you improve.

Note that I'm not in any way trying to address people purposely gaming the system, I dont think there is anything you can ever do to stop them tbh.

But the whole essence of handicapping is basically that. I see where you're coming from, but I'd guess there's a lot more people just rock up on Saturday and play their golf and they play how they play, than there are dedicated range bunnies determined to improve. The whole system is based around a, to be fair, vague, notion of equity.

Who's to say whether demonstrably worse than I normally play is a drop in form or their new base level for whatever reason ? I don't agree with the education analogy tbh, to me its apples and oranges. For most people golf is their escape from the pressures of life for a few hours, if we started intimating that there's a minimum level of effort required, we'd lose plenty of members fairly sharpish imo. Most fellas don't expect to win, but play hoping that they have that good day where they beat their handicap and shoot 40pts or whatever.

Ok, so Joe takes lessons and practices 3 days a week, good for him, he'll get to his new level and his handicap will eventually reflect that. Peter works 10 hours a day and hasn't the time or inclination to go to the range but is happy with his 15 handicap, he knows he could probably be lower if he managed to hit a few buckets of balls a week. It doesn't make him less eligible for being competitive imo. If he does improve, his handicap will follow in due course. Surely we have to try accommodate both types of player ? Like, I get that the scratch or plus guys rarely win net prizes, and there probably isn't a system anywhere that can make that so, but we can't base our standards off that fact that some 22 year old is able to shoot 3 under because he plays 5 days a week and nobody should be able to beat that with less effort but through their handicap. The very existence of gross prizes IMO partly acknowledges that its easier for a high handicapper to beat his handicap by more than a low guy. How that can ever change, I don't know.

I played with a 54 handicapper once last year and he needed the shots. Bear in mind he was in his mid 80's and was still out playing which is a credit to him. But it did make for an awfully long round! Forward tees would have been a big difference to him. At least 1 shot per hole.

I have no problem with people rocking up and playing casual golf, not everyone can or even wants to practice. But rather than give them additional shots up to 54, get them to play off easier tees?

We do it for ladies, we do it for kids, why not do it for everyone?

Again, I'm not saying that anyone shouldnt be allowed to play or win, but everyone should be playing against their peers, not everyone play everyone and handicaps from +4 to -54 attempt to balance it all out.

Also, there is only 1 gross prize and even that can often be an after-thought in many places!

Well they clearly have the time to travel around the place if they have so much time to practice anyway

Would that really work though ? Some might see it as pretty stigmatising, rightly or wrongly.

Even at that, how many groups would you have ? for example "Ladies" is a pretty big group to have one tee for, if we were to differentiate on ability. There's also a bit of an assumption that its length that's the defining criteria in ability (I don't doubt its hugely important), but what about the 20 handicapper who hits it miles but can't chip or putt ? We'd be in danger of going into way too much detail as to why someone is off XX handicap. I mean I reckon most 20 handicappers could be saved 5 shots a round with a good caddy advising them, off any tees.

I think there's something fundamentally good about a hole (or course) where one guy has to play it a certain way because he has no shot, another might play it differently because he has one shot, yet another might do different again as he has 2 shots, and they all compare how they shot at the end of the round.

Meh, I dunno, personally I don't think the system is perfect, I don't think its necessarily broken either. I would have a max of 36 shots though, and no casual golf counting, but that's probably just me. There are always going to be outliers that no system will catch and they're the ones that catch the eye at times. Honestly I play my golf and I score what I score and never really worry or care if someone else shoots 45pts on the day. I tend to think CONGU worked fine, WHS works fine but its a completely and utterly different animal to CONGU and our thinking needs to change as they're so different.

But this is exactly what class prizes do today?

The argument put forward was essentially "if good golfers want a fair chance of winning then they should go play scratch cups"

To me thats totally wrong.

Peer doesnt mean someone of the exact same handicap, Scratch guys would likely be in the with plus and low single guys. I'd see a 10 shot range as probably being good enough, but am open to alternatives.

At the moment there is only 1 gross prize at best, so I dont see lack of prizes as a valid argument tbh.

So your playing partners never make comments about WHS or the scores/handicaps that are winning prizes? I would say you are in a tiny minority so as that is certainly not the case at my club or other clubs I play at.

Is it any more stigmatising that being given 36 shots?

My argument is that there wouldnt be a ladies group, all groups would be based on ability and everyone would have a max handicap of 18.

The 20 handicap who hits it miles would either beat the criteria and move back or wouldnt, same as everyone else? I agree about course management etc, but thats not something we can control or cater for, some would argue its just as much a skill as any other part of golf. However I know that if I ignored course management my handicap would go up and my opportunity to score in the 40's would drastically improve on the days it works out for me.

Most of the higher handicap golfers I see all approach each hole the same as if they were a scratch golfer. They go for every par 3, even if they are hitting a driver. They never lay up anywhere and every tree is made up of gaps :)

The other side of it is today we have people who have loads of shots because they simply cant hit it far enough. I would much rather solve that problem than try to address the other impossibles!

I preferred CONGUs idea of handicap being potential, I think its more equitable in the long run. WHS seems like it was designed purely for casual golfers or beginners, where they want to give everyone a prize. I dont think that suits the golf we mostly play over there parts.

To add, it doesnt really bother me, I certainly dont spend any time thinking about it, my goal is a lower handicap, if prizes come along the way then thats great, but I'm well used to not winning as my handicap has lowered over the years. (Im now in the wilderness of too high for gross and too low for nett!)

Not a member there - but friends are.

President’s Prize results from Charleville. In the overall prizes, one of the top five was a sub 20 handicapper.. just about

Thur/Fri/Sat/Sun 25th 26th 27th 28thAugust

(Mr. Gerard Gould)

 1st Tom Noonan (21)                                  49pts

  2nd Tommy Allen (19)                                 47pts

 3rd Patrick Carey (20)                                 45pts

 4th   Robert Twomey (29)                            43pts

 Gross Denis O’Donovan (2)                      38pts

  5th Jerry Murray (23)                                  42pts

You could be right about the names but you're definitely right that the prize should be strokes 🤣.

Only kidding. Ours is over 36 holes strokes. Usually evens things up a bit.

Charleville is their home club. They've possibly agreed to having their names posted as part of Charleville's social media as part of their membership (whether they know it or not). Someone other than the club posting it on boards.ie could be another matter :)

Those are incredible scores from Charleville ok. Top 2 shot single figures (+8). I presume the course was also set up a bit more difficult for the big comp - back tees, tricky pins?

Not seeing this in my club. A few in low 40s typically win, some in high 30s.

Maybe some courses lend themselves to high handicap golfers bringing in low scores?